Touches You

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

A wealthy local tyrant in the deep South runs roughshod over his son and daughter until an equally sharp stranger drifts into town. For better or worse, this 2-hour movie has about all the earmarks of a 1950's A-production. Consider the following: wide-screen Technicolor, (no little b&w TV here); strong acting, (the New York Method has invaded Hollywood); a sex suffused plot, (just don't go beyond kissing); a contrived happy ending, (send the audience home feeling good); and no thought-provoking politics (there's a Cold War going on). All of these are present in spades in this slick production, marking results very much a creature of the time.I can see why the devilish Ben Quick amounts to Newman's breakout part. I expect girls were swooning in the aisles. That combination of manly chest, deep blue eyes, and tricky smile must have struck deep from Maine to California. I like the way the screenplay builds Ben's battle of wits with old man Varner (Welles) into mutual respect. They're like two circling foxes that may not like each other, but a mutual shrewdness commands respect. On the other hand, Woodward's Clara presents an apt contrast to both Dad and Ben. Woodward's excellent as the proudly self-contained Varner daughter. The actress makes her resistance to the assured Ben not only believable but compelling. Considering what must have been going on off-camera between the soon-to-be-marrieds, makes Woodward's on-camera distance a real accomplishment. All in all, Clara's may not a glamorous role, but it is a pivotal one.Then there's Welles as the obnoxious paterfamilias and local tyrant. To say he over-does his role would understate the result. But, according to IMDb's trivia, he's not about to let this bevy of Method graduates overshadow the great man. (Contrast his version of a big daddy with Burl Ives' calibrated version in the thematically similar Cat on a Hot Tin Roof {1958}). Frankly, I thought Franciosa miscast as the weakling son, Jody. The actor's natural forte is a strong personality. To me, his efforts here strike a sometimes hollow note. There's no really cohesive plot. Instead the narrative is more like an album of how a dysfunctional family finally comes together. The production does a good job of providing authentic southern background, filming extensively in Louisiana. Those dirt roads the horses escape on are both revealing and atmospheric. Then there's Richard Anderson's enigmatic Alan Stewart. His stiffly proper bearing remains an interesting wild card in the mix. It's not clear, to say the least, why he rejects marriage to the willing Clara (Woodward) and life on easy street. The screenplay sort of implies he's a mama's boy, but that doesn't come through in the dramatics. My guess is that he's, oh my gosh, gay, a topic that 50's Hollywood could not safely broach, but would explain his behavior with Clara. On the other side of the coin, is Lee Remick's wanton little Eula. With her low-cut frocks, I was hoping director Ritt would find more reasons for her to lean over before the camera. Oh well, the teasing titillation is also very much indicative of the time.Anyway, the movie's generally over-heated but still entertaining, with colorful characters, and sometimes sharp dialog. Maybe most importantly, it's the first of Newman's rascally characters that he would later raise to a near art form.

I have mixed feelings about this film. It's not the movie's fault that the author (William Faulkner and others) seem to like to provide shades of Lillian Hellman.But, the biggest issue I have here with the acting is Orson Welles. In some scenes, his characterization seems right on target. In other scenes he seems to he hamming it up to the point of creating a cliché of the character. His makeup doesn't help any. That's not to say I didn't enjoy him here. I'm fat, and always feel better when I see someone who is about twice as fat as me. ;-) I never really saw the attraction with Paul Newman. Not a bad actor, nor a great actor. It depended a lot on the quality of the film he was in. I felt pretty much the same about Joanne Woodward. They're both "good" here.Anthony Franciosa is another actor I never cared much for, but with him I'm not neutral. To me he's on the negative side of things, and this film didn't change my mind. Although I will say that the role of a spoiled young man fit him well.On the other hand,I've always felt Lee Remick was a fine actress, and I wish her part here had been more involved.So the plot goes like this: tyrannical Southern father (Welles) tries to control everything and everyone. A drifter type (Newman) comes to town and weaves his way into the family with lust and a thirst for power. He pushes aside a son (Franciosa) through his scheming.The problem with the concept of this film -- at least for me -- is that the presence of a "senior scoundrel" (Welles) doesn't make me root anymore for the "junior scoundrel" (Newman). About all it shows me is that there's almost no major character here who is very likable and to root for. All the men here are ne'er-do-well. It's not a very pretty picture, so to speak.This film is not so much a long, hot summer as a long, plodding tepid slog. And at the end of the slog, somehow all these low class people live happily ever after. Appalling.

Director Martin Ritt and actor Paul Newman worked together on "Hud" and "Hombre", two masterpieces. Their work on 1958's "The Long, Hot Summer", in contrast, is mostly overcooked trash.A raging rip-off of the works of Tennessee Williams and the films of Elia Kazan (despite being based on several William Faulkner stories), "The Long, Hot Summer" abounds with Southern Gothic and Southern Literature clichés. There's its sweltering hot, antebellum landscapes, its old slave homes, its fat, wealthy land barons, its disgruntled proletariat, the baron's bickering sons, its sexy, ultra masculine drifter and of course a cast of Southern women, some of whom are docile, some fiercely independent, some sexually frustrated, some promiscuous, some in need of being tamed.The film's plot is irrelevant. Better to instead focus on the film's few scenes featuring actor Orson Welles, who plays Will Verner, a hilariously bombastic family patriarch who also owns most of his small, Louisianan town. Newton is superb as well, always slick with sweat and dressed in sexy white vests. The film sports some great dialogue, and is actually well written in parts, but simply can't escape its many clichés.6/10 – Worth one viewing. See "This Property is Comdemened".

When I was young, I read The Sound and the Fury and a couple of novellas (Old Man, The Bear) by Faulkner. I conceived a dislike of this man's writing that has stayed with me until this day. His tortured prose makes that of late Henry James a pleasure to read in comparison. Faulkner writes as though he were telling Homeric legends, but without the clarity and simplicity of Homer. The script fashioned by Ravetch and Frank out of various stories has the great benefit of humor and a kind of easy sexuality that is very enjoyable to watch.The Jody Varner character makes no sense--how can he be virile with Eula and impotent with his father? Franciosa seems very unsure of himself in every scene. Ben Quick and Clara have such a great time together: Newman and Woodward are establishing a rapport that would last 50 years. The story needed a convincing patriarch, and there was no-one better than Orson Welles to play Varner. I don't care if his make up was shoddy or his accent virtually incomprehensible, he is wonderful. I could have given it 10, had there not been inconsistencies of plot and characterization.